Return-Path: Received: (qmail 17147 invoked from network); 9 Mar 1999 19:47:49 -0000 Received: from magnet.plus.net.uk (HELO magnet.force9.net) (195.166.128.26) by medusa.plus.net.uk with SMTP; 9 Mar 1999 19:47:49 -0000 Received: (qmail 26004 invoked from network); 9 Mar 1999 19:50:01 -0000 Received: from post.thorcom.com (194.75.130.70) by magnet.plus.net.uk with SMTP; 9 Mar 1999 19:50:01 -0000 Received: from troy.blacksheep.org ([194.75.183.50] ident=root) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 2.04 #3) id 10KSWT-0006zU-01; Tue, 9 Mar 1999 19:50:37 +0000 Received: (from root@localhost) by troy.blacksheep.org (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA16220 for rsgb_lf_group-outgoing; Tue, 9 Mar 1999 19:47:24 GMT X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Received: from post.thorcom.com (root@post.unica.co.uk [194.75.183.70]) by troy.blacksheep.org (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id TAA16176 for ; Tue, 9 Mar 1999 19:38:21 GMT Received: from mta.xtra.co.nz ([203.96.92.3] helo=mta2-rme.xtra.co.nz) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 2.04 #3) id 10KSNd-00063y-00 for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Tue, 9 Mar 1999 19:41:29 +0000 Received: from bobverna ([202.27.178.205]) by mta2-rme.xtra.co.nz (InterMail v04.00.02.07 201-227-108) with SMTP id <19990309193829.XUYW3226200.mta2-rme@bobverna> for ; Wed, 10 Mar 1999 08:38:29 +1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Message-ID: <36E57242.7727@xtra.co.nz> Date: Wed, 10 Mar 1999 08:10:58 +1300 From: "vernall" X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01C-XTRA (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org Subject: Re: LF: QRN Free Site References: <01be69bb$4277c960$8eeb869f@beachwood.tinet.ie> <36E5376E.30D226F9@bellatlantic.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: Precedence: bulk Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org Hi all, Query on QRN versus QRM. LF natural noise levels (QRN) are typically well above the front end noise in good receiving gear, and there is not much that can be done to improve matters further. The QRN likely originates from lightning in the atmosphere. Use of a whip/loop phased array producing a carioid pattern can improve S/N a little if the atmospheric noise is mainly from directions well away from the signal angle of arrival (as verified by Andrew ZL2BBJ and Nat ZL3VN, who regularly use phased systems for receiving amateur LF signals) On the other hand, man made noise (QRM) can be a real pain in the rear end when trying to receive weak LF signals. Keeping as far as is practicable away from mains power seems to be the best countermeasure. A well decoupled power supply to an active whip sited down the backyard can give quite good relief from mains borne QRM at LF. Bob ZL2CA Andre' Kesteloot wrote: > > Hello LF Gang, > There is nothing that says that my receiver has _got_ to be located > next to my transmitter, is there? > Over here, we are considering finding a qrn-free site, equipping it > properly with a good receiver, taking the whole 2 kHz band and > redistributing to all the members, either on a FM repeater, or on the > internet. > This won't happen probably until the fall, as we are first trying to > put a transmitter on the air! > 73 > Andre' > ************************************* > finbar o'connor wrote: > > WHAT A DIFFERENCE WORKING FROM A QRN FREE SITE MAKES. > [...]JOHN /G4GVC HAS MADE A VERY GOOD POINT ABOUT STATIONS > PUTTING OUT GOOD SIGNALS BUT BEING UNABLE TO HEAR VERY > WELL.